This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-06-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| By raising self-defense, Sullon in effect admitted that he killed Mondejar and thereby assumed the burden of proof to establish the elements of self-defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence.[22] But instead of presenting clear and convincing evidence to satisfy the requirements of self-defense as a justifying circumstance to absolve Sullon from criminal liability, all the defense did was to concentrate on trying to debunk the testimony of Barcenal by showing that he was allegedly not in the scene of the crime. | |||||
|
2001-09-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| There is treachery when: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[43] In this case, the evidence shows that accused-appellant and his companions, both of whom are still at large, grabbed and dragged the victim and thereafter hacked him 13 times with a bolo. The victim, who was unarmed, had no opportunity to defend himself. While it is true that the autopsy report, as testified by Dr. Casiano, reveals that there was a frontal attack, such does not negate treachery. Treachery is still present even in a frontal attack when it is sudden and the victim is unarmed.[44] Thus, even if the victim is forewarned of the danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated if it is carried out in a way which made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.[45] | |||||